Photo: Anna Moneymaker Getty Images via Agence France-Presse In the United States, the Secret Service is mandated to protect all presidents, including former ones.
Léo Mercier-Ross and Mathilde Beaulieu-Lépine
Posted at 7:38 p.m.
- United States
How did shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks manage to position himself so close to Donald Trump, to the point of having him in his sights, without being arrested ? Theories are flying from all sides all sides since the attempted assassination of the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States, but poor coordination of the security services attracts the attention of the experts consulted by Le Devoir.
“It’s clear that there was a failure in terms of security,” observes Marc Parent, who was head of the Security Service. police of the City of Montreal (SPVM) during the attack against Pauline Marois at the Métropolis in 2012. He is currently CEO. Commissionaires du Québec.
National security expert Michel Juneau-Katsuya explains that, normally, the secret services provide close guard for Mr. Trump, while the local police are responsible for securing the ground. Being located 130 m from the podium, the roof where the shooter was located therefore theoretically fell under the responsibility of the police department of the city of Butler.
However, the responsibility of the situation remains “divided”, explains the former agent of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. According to him, the standards for a gathering like the one on Saturday dictate that a command center be erected to allow collaboration between the different authorities, including the local police. The secret services still remain those who “direct the operation”, since it involves the protection of a former president, he notes.
200% Deposit Bonus up to €3,000 180% First Deposit Bonus up to $20,000This situation is reminiscent of the evening of Pauline Marois' victory in 2012, when the new prime minister was the victim of an assassination attempt. The different bodies responsible for security had also shared the tasks for the evening, leaving certain blind spots in the protection offered. “The interior of the building was the responsibility of the Sûreté du Québec (SQ); outside, from the Montreal police,” recalls Mr. Juneau-Katsuya. Here again, responsibility was shared, even if the SQ directed the operations.
“By lack of communication and coordination in the deployment of their personnel, both the SQ and the SPVM failed in their obligation to ensure the safety of the public, in this case that of the applicants,” a judge of the Court finally ruled. Superior Court in 2022.
Also read
- Are Quebec media too Americanized?
- A profitable murder attempt for Donald Trump
Whose fault is it ?
On Monday evening, US Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle took responsibility for the events of July 13 in an interview broadcast by ABC. She confirmed that the building where the shooter was located had been placed within the “outer perimeter” of the gathering. “Local police were present in that area,” she said, but did not explain how Thomas Matthew Crooks managed to climb onto her roof without being prevented.
“Any news that suggests that the Secret Service is blaming local police for Sunday's incident is simply false,” the US Secret Service also posted on the social network X on Tuesday.
In the United States, the secret services have a mandate to protect all presidents, including former ones. But the degree of protection offered differs between a former president like Mr. Trump and the current head of the country, notes Michel Juneau-Katsuya. Donald Trump would also have benefited from greater protection if he were officially a candidate for president, which was not yet the case on Saturday.
In short, protection “increases and climbs when we approach power,” summarizes the national security expert. “And when you’re in power, obviously, you have the whole picture. »
One thing is certain according to the experts consulted by Le Devoir: Saturday's assassination attempt last should not have happened. “What was really missing in this case, and it's becoming clearer and clearer, is that this place [the roof] was known to be a vulnerability. And despite that, it was not secure,” said Marc Parent.
With Agence France Presse